• Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.

Sad news on the morning commute

Status
Not open for further replies.

num

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
It's very sad. The worst part of it, in my opinion, is how many people are refusing to acknowledge the problem, let alone act to decrease it.

I just think that a couple hundred years down the line, this will be an era that humanity has (hopefully!) survived though, and the kids will be in school laughing when their history teacher tells them that people didn't believe in global warming, the same way we reacted when told that people used to think the world was flat, and didn't believe any statements to the contrary.
 

Lori_K

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I'm sorry, I am one of those people who isn't convinced the sky is falling.

Back in the '70s, climatologists were pretty well convinced we were entering another ice age (global cooling).

Global climate change has happened for millions of years. The Sahara wasn't always a desert. Good parts of North America were swallowed by glacier fields.
I think it is hubris on the part of mankind to assume that global warming is "all our fault", after 100 years of fossil fuel usage and 150 years of temperature data (along with a few ice core samples). I also don't think that this is enough evidence to predict the next 100 years. The earth has been through many, many warming and cooling cycles in its 4.5 Billion year history, and will continue to cycle, whether we are here or not.

That being said, I don't believe we should fritter away our natural resources, and do what we can to conserve/recycle, and reduce emissions.

There is still a lot of dissenting information on global warming out there. I am not convinced yet that the hype isn't politically motivated in many respects.
 

RachelV

Administrator
Staff member
Meh. True or not, it wouldn't kill any of us to be a little more environmentally conscious. That's my official stance on the global warming issue. :smile:
 

num

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Lori_K said:
That being said, I don't believe we should fritter away our natural resources, and do what we can to conserve/recycle, and reduce emissions.

While I personally think there is a warming trend, the attitude that bothers me is the "There are no environmental problems. It doesn't make a difference if i waste, pollute, etc. Recycling and reducing emissions, that's pot smoking hippie stuff" attitude.

Lori K's statement is a great example of NOT being like that, which I respect, whether or not we agree on what's happening with the planet :smile:
 

Little Lightning

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I think people here in Denver would be happy for a little global warming right now. We've had 44 days with snow on the ground. The last time that happen was 1983. It warms up into the 40's then snows and gets cold. There is more snow here than in the mtns. We've had over 60"!

Unfortunately, today is too cold to ski so I'm puttering around the house. The wind was so strong that it blew out the window of a police car in Georgetown.

I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening and I do think we need to do more to take care of our environment but winter has really been winter here!:smile:

Kathi
 

nelsapbm

Certified Ski Diva
LoriK-my thoughts exactly! Nicely written.
Hope everyone gets out and ski this weekend! If you're coming up to VT Sunday, it's going to be COLD, so bring your long johns.
 

smpayne

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I completely agree with Lori_K.

But while I don't agree completely with the extremists, I recognize that their voices are necessary (on both sides). While the extremist call for drastic (sometimes unrealistic) changes, their opponents fight against any change at all. The rest of us become far more familiar with the idea and are more willing to make small gradual changes. No one likes drastic changes, but small changes will leave the door open for even more changes.
 

Molly

Certified Ski Diva
Yow! When even the Republican party admits that this discussion is over, as John McCain did yesterday -- admits, in other words, that global warming is an immediate and perilous reality -- it's time to wake up.

Bottom line: Unless we make some changes in the manner in which we live on this planet, the diminishment of ski season will be the very least of our worries...
 

SnoBunny

Certified Ski Diva
yow indeed!

molly -- I more than agree with your "yow!," and I'll raise you a "yowza!"

to Lori_k and the rest of the climate change doubters, I have a few comments. first, I'm a paleoclimatologist. this means that I was looking forward to the new IPCC report like most people look forward to the super bowl. (or like we look forward to the start of ski season!) I want to keep this forum as friendly and awesome as possible, but I just NEED to inject a little science into this discussion, because I can't in good conscience just scroll on by.

I personally work largely with marine geochemistry, but I have fingers in various other climate pies -- stalagmites (speleothems), sediment records, that sort of thing. so the first thing I want to tell you is that there is not just 100 years of observational records and a little bit of ice information. there is an overwhelming preponderance of data, from all over the planet. all the continents, all the ocean basins. this data comes from ice (from air bubbles trapped in glaciers), from tiny, tiny microfossils in deep-sea sediments, from oxygen isotopes in stalagmites from caves, from tree rings, you name it. we currently have a very good climate record going back half a million years or more (visit https://epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gif for an excellent graph showing just that).

second, you're absolutely right that there are indeed natural climate fluctuations. however, the natural fluctuations do not explain the shifts we've seen recently. are there variations in earth's orbit, solar intensity, etc? absolutely. but a look at plots of global temperature show that we are moving way, way out of whack with those fluctuations. furthermore, we're concerned just as much with the alarming rate of change (a degree in 100 years? that's enormous!) as with the

third, you're also right that a chance of a degree or two doesn't sound like much. however, the difference between the last glacial period global average temperature and the right-now global average temperature is only about 6 degrees (C) (that's about a 12.5 F difference). the climate is a delicately balanced place, and it only takes a shift of a few degrees to cause serious changes.

I'm glad we all agree (because of climate change or otherwise) that it's crucial to conserve, to cut down emissions, etc. and I think we also all agree that a certain dose of skepticism is important, and even necessary to weed out the true bits from the political ones. but I just wanted to go on record that the is-global-warming-really-happening phase of scientific discussion is over and has been for a long time. there is absolute agreement that we are warming up the planet, that it's bad, and that it needs to stop.
 

Kimmyt

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Which leads into my next gripe... why on earth doesn't the entire US have required emissions testing?? From what I understand, Colorado doesn't even require inspections, much less emissions...tsk, tsk
 

Bonni

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Kimmyt said:
Which leads into my next gripe... why on earth doesn't the entire US have required emissions testing?? From what I understand, Colorado doesn't even require inspections, much less emissions...tsk, tsk

Emissions testing is a bunch of crap. Individual cars in some states are subject to stringent tests, while the government vehicles and commercial vehicles get a PASS.

What good is it if your little Honda can pass emissions, but the city bus and highway maintenance vehicles spew black crap all over the place without so much as a 'hey'?:mad:

One size fits all....or does it?
 

Little Lightning

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
When we moved here 2 yrs ago both our vehicles had to be tested even though they were tested and passed in Ohio.

My friend's Honda Accord was less than 6 months old and it had to be tested because she did not buy it in Co.

I bought my new CRV here and it is exempt from testing for 4 years. However, not all parts of the state, like Summit County, require testing. Denver has electronic testing stations along the highway. If your vehicle encounters one of these a certain number of times within a given period and it passes then you don't have to go to a testing station. We passed one the other day but my vehicle is exempt.:smile:

The air quality here in Denver is a lot better than the air in Ohio. I have asthma and one of my triggers is air pollution. When we went back to Ohio this past fall I had to use my inhaler much more frequently because of polluted air than I do here.

When the air is bad here in the winter we have "red days" and homeowners are asked not to burn wood in their fireplaces. Its voluntary but my neighbors abide by it.

According to the Lung Assoc. the cities that used to have problems have cleaned up their air quality and now cities like Cincinnati have risen to the top 10.

And Bonni, I don't notice the RTD buses as being so offensive here. We do have light rail, which a lot more cities need to implement. We also have lots of bike trails and a sizable community of bike commuters.

Water is the big issue here. I didn't realize how much water I wasted until I moved here. The predictions of global warming predict more drought for the west, including warmer summers and more forest fires. They're saying we will still be able to ski just not at Thanksgiving and not so late in the season.

Everyone in this country needs to take responsibility for this and our leaders need to get on the bandwagon to get the country motivated to conserve. We are using up most of the world's resources. It'll be interesting to see what our leaders do.

Kathi
 
Well, I have to re-organize my thoughts here before I post anything emotional or intellectual. I'm a little shocked about some of the posts here, but I think that what I am learning about Sustainable Slopes is good information to continue to look into. It's always good to see that there are always the believers and the skeptics.......
 

GirlFromPA

Certified Ski Diva
SnoBunny said:
molly -- I more than agree with your "yow!," and I'll raise you a "yowza!"

to Lori_k and the rest of the climate change doubters, I have a few comments. first, I'm a paleoclimatologist. this means that I was looking forward to the new IPCC report like most people look forward to the super bowl. (or like we look forward to the start of ski season!) I want to keep this forum as friendly and awesome as possible, but I just NEED to inject a little science into this discussion, because I can't in good conscience just scroll on by.

I personally work largely with marine geochemistry, but I have fingers in various other climate pies -- stalagmites (speleothems), sediment records, that sort of thing. so the first thing I want to tell you is that there is not just 100 years of observational records and a little bit of ice information. there is an overwhelming preponderance of data, from all over the planet. all the continents, all the ocean basins. this data comes from ice (from air bubbles trapped in glaciers), from tiny, tiny microfossils in deep-sea sediments, from oxygen isotopes in stalagmites from caves, from tree rings, you name it. we currently have a very good climate record going back half a million years or more (visit https://epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gif for an excellent graph showing just that).

second, you're absolutely right that there are indeed natural climate fluctuations. however, the natural fluctuations do not explain the shifts we've seen recently. are there variations in earth's orbit, solar intensity, etc? absolutely. but a look at plots of global temperature show that we are moving way, way out of whack with those fluctuations. furthermore, we're concerned just as much with the alarming rate of change (a degree in 100 years? that's enormous!) as with the

third, you're also right that a chance of a degree or two doesn't sound like much. however, the difference between the last glacial period global average temperature and the right-now global average temperature is only about 6 degrees (C) (that's about a 12.5 F difference). the climate is a delicately balanced place, and it only takes a shift of a few degrees to cause serious changes.

I'm glad we all agree (because of climate change or otherwise) that it's crucial to conserve, to cut down emissions, etc. and I think we also all agree that a certain dose of skepticism is important, and even necessary to weed out the true bits from the political ones. but I just wanted to go on record that the is-global-warming-really-happening phase of scientific discussion is over and has been for a long time. there is absolute agreement that we are warming up the planet, that it's bad, and that it needs to stop.

Hi I'm new here and while I was waiting for my account to be activated so I can ask a question I came across this thread. I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. As someone who a)most likely takes money from the government in grants to fund your research and b) sites .gov links as your source I'm going to have to say you're a bit biased in your findings. If government funded scientists don't come up with the conclusions that the government wants they don't get funded. And no offense but the IPCC is the most disputed report. About half of the scientists invloved in preparing the IPCC in 1996 don't agree with it's findings. In fact
The IPCC reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, accuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a true "consensus" of the scientific community. This statement about consensus is totally false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the IPCC are criticized by numerous scientists today. A more accurate description of the current situation would not be consensus, but rather controversy. Science does not progress via a process of consensus, or voting. There was no "consensus" for Copernicus’s idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; it is for politicians.
(Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., who is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw)

I too do research in climate change and effects on the planet, only I do it for the private sector, the Nuclear Industry, which is the cleanest, least waste producing, most effective energy source that we have. I can site many leading scientists that have findings that directly contradict what you stated. That therefore does not bring us to any conclusive evidence.

Least of all, may I just say that our climate has risen 7/10 of a degree F in the 20th Century but you forgot to mention that we are 7 degrees F cooler than the average of the entire Earth's life span. Also you forgot to mention that Greenland's ice decrease has been 4/10 of a % per Century. Also Greenland was warmer about 50 years ago than it is now. Also, the ocean levels have slightly risen in recent years but they are 200' lower than the average of 6K years. Also the findings of the increase of CO2 have been found to be caused by rising temperatures. If higher CO2 is causing higher temperatures wouldn't CO2 levels have to rise first? The exact opposite has been found to be true. CO2 has risen from the ocean's releasing more in direct cause of higher temperatures due to solar flares.

But please notice that our findings don't help our industry at all. We want global warming caused by humans in order to better promote the reason for nuclear power expansion. We just haven't found it yet. :confused:

Now, I'm not saying lets go liter and run our cars more because it doesn't matter but remember that it's the government's job to create alarm in humans in order to get their agenda through. i.e. the banning of DDT because of "Silent Spring" written by Rachel Carson. DDT isn't harmful and never has proven to be except through junk science. In fact, the Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller of Geigy Pharmaceutical in Switzerland was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1948 "for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods." He also used to eat a spoonful of it everyday and didn't die of cancer or any other health problem said to be caused by DDT. In fact, 14 million people have died due to the banning of DDT but no one wants to remember that. My point is, they rigged the experiments to create the result they wanted in order to get it banned and create a mass hysteria. They are doing the same thing with Global Warming. Al Gore told you some things but conveniently forgot to tell you other findings because they didn't fit into his agenda. WHOOPS! It's also been shown that the graph he used to show the "hockey stick shape" of the rising temperatures was fixed. You can plug any numbers into it and always get that shape. How convenient for Al.

Here's a very interesting article for you all to read. https://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Global warming that is allegedly caused by man-made emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, is a hypothesis based on computer modeling and theoretical arguments. The most important foundation for this hypothesis is the analysis of greenhouse gases in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. From these results, glaciologists have inferred that the CO2 content in the pre-industrial atmosphere was 26% lower than it is now. In several papers published during the last decade, however, it has been demonstrated that the ice core studies are tainted by the manipulation of data, the illegitimate rejection of inconvenient results, and one-sided interpretations – all of which disqualify these studies as a reliable source of information on atmospheric changes during past ages.
 

ski diva

Administrator
Staff member
While all this is very interesting, it's beginning to border on a political debate -- so now that both sides have had their say, I think I'm going to close this thread.

Just so you know, forum policies state the following:

Political Posts: No political posts are allowed on TheSkiDiva.com, and any post or thread that turns into a political debate will be removed.

There are a few reasons for this:
1) This is a skiing forum, not a political forum. if you want to talk politics, there are tons of other places to go;
2) I'd like us all to remain friends, and everyone knows that friends and politics -- like friends and religion -- just don't mix.

I let this go for a while since global warming is something we as skiers should all be concerned about. So I hope all of you understand that I mean no disrespect to anyone in closing this down. We are all entitled to our own opinions on things like this (even if the ones that don't agree with mine are wrong! :D ).

If anyone cares to discuss this with me further, drop me a PM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
26,237
Messages
497,683
Members
8,503
Latest member
MermaidKelly
Top